Karnataka High Court
K P Devaraj vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 July, 2023
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:24177
WP No. 14145 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JULY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO. 14145 OF 2023 (LB-ELE)
BETWEEN:
K P DEVARAJ
S/O LATE PILLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/AT KADAGATTURU VILLAGE,
VEMAGAL HOBLI,
KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 563102
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S KALYAN BASAVARAJ., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
Digitally signed
by JUANITA PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
THEJESWINI RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT
Location: HIGH
COURT OF RAJ DEPARTMENT
KARNATAKA
3RD FLOOR, M S BUILDING
DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560001
2. THE TAHSILDAR
KOLAR TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563101
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
KOLAR TALUK
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:24177
WP No. 14145 of 2023
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563101
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KOLAR TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563101
5. KARNATAKA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION
NO.8, 1ST FLOOR, KSCNF BUILDING ANNEX,
CUNNINGHAM ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 052
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, AAG ALONGWITH
SRI. SANTHOSH KUMAR M.B., HCGP FOR R1 TO R4
MS. YASHWINI RAJ, ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. VAISHALI HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE R4, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
DTD 23.06.2023 WHICH HAS BEEN DOWNLOADED FROM THE
OFFICIAL WEBSITE AND PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A TO THE
WRIT PETITION INASMUCH AS RESERVING THE POST OF
ADHYAKSHA FOR CHANNASANDRA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KOLAR
TALUK AND DISTRICT FOR GENERAL CATEGORY (WOMAN) AND
ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:24177
WP No. 14145 of 2023
ORDER
R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The petitioner is aggrieved of the reservation provided to the post of Adhyaksha of Channasandra Gram Panchayat of Kolar Taluk.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the immediate past, that is, in the elections conducted in the year 2020 the post of Adhyaksha of Channasandra was allotted to General (Female) category. This time too, the same category has been allocated to Channasandra. Therefore, it is contended that it is clearly in violation of the rule of rotation in reservation. Learned Counsel submits that there is a constitutional mandate contained in Article 243D of the Constitution of India, which is also reflected in Section 44 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, that there shall be rotation in reservation. In other words, it is submitted that there cannot be repetition of the same category at any cost. Even otherwise, it is submitted that the post of Adhyaksha -4- NC: 2023:KHC:24177 WP No. 14145 of 2023 was reserved to General (Female) in the year 2000, 2005 and 2010 (I term) and 2020 (I term). Therefore, even if the process of rotation in reservation was made by a computerized system, as is sought to be contended by the learned AAG, these are relevant factors which were required to be considered by the system. It was pointed out that for Harati Gram Panchayat, allotment of General category to the post of Adhyaksha was made in the year 2000 and 2015. Therefore, the allotment of General (Female) could have been made to Harati Gram Panchayat which would meet the requirement of the policy of rotation in reservation.
3. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General while pointing out to the statement of objections and the worksheet provided along with the checklist, submitted that in terms of the guidelines provided by the State Election Commission in the form of a Government Order dated 25.05.2023, allotment of reservation should commence from the category of Scheduled Castes, -5- NC: 2023:KHC:24177 WP No. 14145 of 2023 followed by Scheduled Tribes, followed by Backward class 'A', then Backward class 'B' and thereafter reservation of General (Female) is required to be assigned. While pointing out to the worksheet, it was submitted that while allotting reservation of Scheduled Caste category, there were 13 Gram Panchayats that were eligible and Channasandra was one of them. When lottery was picked the reservation went to Holuru and Muduvadi. Thereafter, even while making reservation for Backward class 'B' category once again Channasandra was in the fray and once again in the pick of lottery, the reservation of Backward Class 'A' category went to Kyalanuru Gram Panchayat. Thereafter from amongst the remaining 17 Gram Panchayats, reservation of General (Woman) category was to be made to 8 Gram Panchayats. Seven Gram Panchayats were directly selected since in the immediate previous past there was no reservation of Female category to those 7 Gram Panchayats. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner was required to consider allotment of one more category of General (Female). The -6- NC: 2023:KHC:24177 WP No. 14145 of 2023 Deputy Commissioner found Channasandra and Harati were to be picked up for allotment of General (woman) category. In terms of the Guidelines a lottery was picked and Channasandra was chosen for General (Woman) category. The learned AAG would therefore submit that the Deputy Commissioner has followed the guidelines in letter and spirit and there cannot be any fault found in the allotment made by the Deputy Commissioner.
4. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned AAG and perused the petition papers.
5. Although it is sought to be contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the question of picking up lottery would not arise in the present case, this Court is convinced that having gone through the worksheet that the Deputy Commissioner has followed the guidelines and mala fides cannot be attributed to the choice of reservation. In fact, the learned Counsel for the petitioner did not attribute any mala fides to the Deputy Commissioner.
-7-
NC: 2023:KHC:24177 WP No. 14145 of 2023
6. Having been satisfied with the allotment of reservation made by the Deputy Commissioner and having perused the worksheet, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE JT/-